Network-based planning for the sustainable
development of tourism destinations:
conceptual approach
Planeamento em rede para o desenvolvimento sustentável de
destinos turísticos: abordagem conceptual
SANDRA FERNANDES * [smneivafernandes@ua.pt] FILIPA BRANDÃO ** [filipa.brandao@ua.pt] CARLOS COSTA *** [ccosta@ua.pt]
Abstract | Tourism planning applies to the tourism system, the same basic concepts and approaches of global planning. Among other goals, it aims to bring benefits to local actors while maintaining the sustainability of tourism industry. The sustainability of tourism demands for the development of effective networks between economic actors. The community involvement and participation both in the planning process and in networks is crucial. Considering that the dynamics between tourism stakeholders may result in constraints to sustainable planning due to the diversity of interests, it is important to involve the local community through a network-based planning process framed in collaborative policies. The present paper aims to conduct a state of art review about the tourism planning processes, the sustain-able development of tourism destinations and the role of networks in linking these dimensions. The main objective is to create a conceptual framework for networked tourism planning processes supporting destinations’ sustainable development.
Keywords| Networks, planning, sustainability, development, tourism destinations
Resumo | O planeamento turístico aplica ao sistema do turismo os mesmos conceitos e abordagens básicos do planeamento em geral. Entre outros objetivos, pretende trazer benefícios para os atores locais, mantendo a sustentabilidade da indústria turística. A sustentabilidade no turismo implica o desenvolvi-mento efetivo de redes entre os atores económicos. O envolvidesenvolvi-mento da comunidade e a participação, tanto no processo de planeamento como nas redes é crucial. Considerando que as dinâmicas entre os stakeholders do turismo podem resultar em obstáculos ao planeamento sustentável devido à diversidade de interesses, é importante envolver a comunidade local através de um processo de planeamento em rede enquadrado em políticas colaborativas. No presente artigo pretende-se analisar o estado da arte sobre os
*Ph.D. Candidate in Tourism at the University of Aveiro. Member of the GOVCOPP Research Unit.
** Ph.D. in Tourism from the University of Aveiro. Assistant Professor in the University of Aveiro and Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Member of the GOVCOPP Research Unit.
***Ph.D. in Tourism from the University of Surrey. Full Professor in the University of Aveiro. Member of the GOVCOPP Research Unit.
processos de planeamento turístico, o desenvolvimento sustentável de destinos turísticos e o papel das redes na articulação destas dimensões. O objetivo principal é criar um modelo conceptual para os pro-cessos de planeamento turístico em rede que suporte o desenvolvimento sustentável de destinos turísticos.
Palavras-chave| Redes, planeamento, sustentabilidade, desenvolvimento, destinos turísticos
1. Introduction
Although networks are essential for sustainable tourism development, the research on the topic is sparse. This paper provides a systematic litera-ture review focusing on network-based planning in tourism destinations. In this paper it also will be analysed the conceptualization and framework of planning and its relations with the sustainable de-velopment, as the quality and sustainability of a tourism destination depends on planning processes and networks. The paper begins with a conceptu-alization of planning and sustainable development, followed by the definition of networks and a pre-sentation of network theory. Finally, the process of planning within networks for the sustainability of tourism destinations is focused. The article ends with a conceptual model of networked sustainable tourism planning. By identifying the main areas of intervention, it may contribute to the development of research on the topic, but also for the design of planning processes by destinations’ managers and planners.
2. Network-based planning for the sustainable development of tourism destinations
Tourism is one of the major world industries as it represents 10% of gross domestic product; 7% of world’s exports and 1 in 11 jobs (WTO, 2016). De-spite contributing to world economic development, tourism also has created negative impacts due to its unplanned growth. These undesirable
side-effects have led to an increasing concern on the conservation and preservation of tourism resources (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). Subsequently, the sus-tainability concept was adopted in tourism, being common to refer to the desirable tourism develop-ment as sustainable tourism developdevelop-ment (Butler, 1999). However, sustainability is not possible if there is no cooperative behaviour and the involve-ment of all stakeholders. Thus networked planning approaches play an important role to achieve sus-tainability in tourism destinations.
2.1. Frameworking planning and sustainable development
Planning is carried out at all levels and has been developed through the centuries since the Mayas civilization (Costa, 1996, 2001; Gunn, 1994; Inskeep, 1991). The concept and ap-proaches of planning have changed throughout the years. In the beginning it was believed that the elaboration of a master plan was enough to control the development, but throughout the years it was proved that they were very strict, so they were not feasible on the long term (Inskeep, 1991). Nowa-days, the used approach changed and it is con-sidered that “planning is a continuous process and must be flexible, depending on changing circum-stances, but still achieve the basic development objectives” (Inskeep, 1991, p. 26).
Tourism planning adopts the same basic con-cepts and approaches of general planning to the tourism system characteristics (Inskeep, 1991). However, in opposition to town planning, it has
often developed as a reaction to particular situ-ations and market interests (Costa, 1996, 2001). In the post-war period tourism developed into a mass industry (Murphy, 1985), despite this rapid expansion the tourism planning did not progress that much during this period. The expansion of the tourism industry was left in the hands of en-trepreneurs, and this led to an unplanned develop-ment of tourism destinations, which brought huge social, economic and physical implications. This failure of tourism planning was caused by the ab-sence of specific tourism planning controls, the in-adequacy of legislation, and poor and ineffective tourism organizations (Costa, 1996, 2001, 2006).
The inadequacy of tourism planning practice led to claim for alternative and more efficient and effective planning approaches and, consequently, tourism planning models were created (Costa, 1996, 2001; Costa, Panyik, & Buhalis, 2014), such as the PASOLP model (Baud-Bovy, 1982, cited in Costa, 2001, pp. 430-431) and the Getz (1986) model. These two models contributed to shift the tourism planning emphasis towards a corporate and a systematic approach (Costa, 1996, 2001). As planning deals with people, their wishes and motivations after the 1980s, public participation has emerged as a need (Costa & Brandão, 2011). Thus the future of tourism will be flexible, seg-mented, customised and diagonally integrated in-stead of the 1970s mass tourism that was rigid and standardised (Poon, 1993).
The beginning of the 21st century has been characterised by massive changes that are deter-mining the future of the tourism industry. Better legislation, funding and planning are required to facilitate sustainable growth and the equitable dis-tribution of wealth. This led to the spread of the professional planning of tourism industry. The eco-nomic crisis of the beginning of the 21st century pushed the planning and organisation of tourism in new directions, as it was needed to reduce pub-lic debts and bring more efficiency and effective-ness to public operations. Due to this economic
crisis, destinations must be planned and managed according to its products, territories and level of the tourism industry. Planning was undertaken by local and regional-level organisations as it is at these levels that impacts are felt and, conse-quently, more effectively managed (Costa, 2006; Costa et al., 2014). “In the first quarter of the 21st century it is believed that the evolution of successful planning and organisation in the tourism sector should take account of the development of the territory and its governance” (Costa, Panyik, & Buhalis, 2013, p.5). Some countries “introduced forms of comprehensive regional and local tourism planning, others moved on and enacted legislation where the planning of the tourism industry started to be undertaken alongside traditional urban and regional planning” (Costa et al., 2014, p. 463).
Tourism planning has to be rethought due to the increasing competition, in the past destina-tions competed individually in the world’s market, but the increasing competition demands more co-ordination, new forms of planning and modern or-ganisations (Costa et al., 2014). Considering that sustainability is crucial to the competitiveness of a destination, it is essential that planners and man-agers understand it and include it in tourism plan-ning and practice. And the planplan-ning of tourism development underlies a set of approaches and principles, towards the promotion of a sustainable tourism development.
The original definition of sustainable devel-opment was advanced by the World Commission on Economic Development for the United Na-tions (WCED) ‘Our Common Future’ Report (also known as the Brundtland Report), which defines it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of fu-ture generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).
The emergence of the sustainable development concept led to its adoption in many areas, in-cluding the tourism industry, and thus appeared the sustainable tourism notion. The
environmen-tal, economic and sociocultural dimensions are the base of sustainable tourism, and balance must sub-sist between these three dimensions for tourism to be considered sustainable (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Stabler, 1997; WTO, 1998). Currently, some authors suggest more dimensions such as the technological (Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006) and the political (Butler, 1999; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Mowforth & Munt, 1998) dimensions. The technological dimension (Math-ieson & Wall, 1982; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006) in-cludes the internet that enabled host communi-ties to create communication networks and di-vulge their destination, and allowed tourists to be-come acquainted with destinations all around the world. It also includes environmentally mobility systems; energy efficiency; and scientific knowl-edge and technological support that allow evalu-ating and monitoring tourism impacts, as well as providing alternatives to avoid future negative ef-fects (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). The political di-mension is about the renegotiation of goals and establishment of a system of governance that en-ables the implementation of tourism sustainability at all levels (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). In fact, it is important to politicise the tourism industry to avoid corruption and the transformation of nature, culture and society, and, simultaneously, move to-wards sustainability (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). All the dimensions are interconnected and serve as a basis for development of sustainability indica-tors, and indicators are crucial to monitor tourism and its impacts on the tourism destinations.
Contrary to what might be expected, there is still no consensual definition of sustainable tourism (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Stabler, 1997). This, in a way, justifies the lack of monitoring of tourism and its sustainability because adopting a defini-tion that focuses mainly on one of the dimensions, and neglect the others, could destroy elements that make the region unique (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). “Sustainable tourism implies that the natural, his-toric and cultural resources for tourism are
con-served for continuous use in the future as well as the present. In fact, these resources can be en-hanced by tourism where needed” (WTO, 1998, pp. 13-14). Sustainable tourism is increasingly in vogue and many tourists are looking for this type of tourism. For that reason several entities use this term to attract tourists, when in reality it is no more than a slogan as sustainability in those desti-nations is non-existent, which leads to discontent-ment (Butler, 1999; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Liu, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 1998).
In 1992 a comprehensive action programme en-titled as Agenda 21 was adopted, which led to sustainability being the fundamental development policy of several governments (WTO, 1998). The growing concern for sustainability in the tourism industry induced to the creation of Agenda 21 for the Travel Industry and Tourism, which established the priority areas of action for government author-ities and for the tourism companies.
However, for sustainability to occur it is nec-essary to take into account the different above mentioned dimensions of sustainable tourism, as well as to encourage the participation of the lo-cal community. To designate a form of tourism as ‘sustainable tourism’ does not imply that it is effec-tively sustainable, hence it is extremely important to monitor the impacts to determine whether, in fact, it is sustainable. It is also important that all stakeholders are interested in actually participating in the process. In this process, the public sector plays a very important role as it is responsible for outlining a strategy and regulating the industry in order to make it truly sustainable.
Sustainable tourism development seeks to en-courage appropriate forms of tourism and does not generate serious environmental or sociocultural problems. Therefore when developing in a sustain-able way environmental quality is maintained or improved; cultural well-being and economic pros-perity are enhanced; tourist markets are retained and the benefits of tourism are widely optimised and spread throughout the community improving
their quality of life, due to a high level of tourist satisfaction (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003; Stabler, 1997; WTO, 1998), and community involvement is fundamental. Besides community involvement it is crucial that all stake-holders cooperate, especially due to the small size of the majority of tourism enterprises, otherwise the sustainability may not be achieved. This coop-eration may be through the establishment of net-works, so it is important to understand this con-cept.
2.2. Understanding network concept and the-ory
Although the terms partnership, strategic alliance, coalition or cooper-ative agreement are frequently used to describe forms of collaboration, part-nerships between actors in tourism are often operationalised as ‘networks’. Technically, these descriptors differ with regard to their degrees of inte-gration and organisation but social in-teraction between actors is a common theme (Albrecht, 2013, p. 639).
Network analysis has started to emerge in the literature in the late 1980s (Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008). The increasing participation of multiple stakeholders in tourism planning and de-velopment gave relevance to network theory, since the network concept is based on the relation-ships between entities (Farmaki, 2015; Scott et al., 2008).
Originated in mathematical graph theory, net-works in their basic form consist of ‘nodes’ (‘ac-tors’) and ‘edges’ (‘ties’). From a social sciences perspective, networks represent actors and their re-lationships: network theory is concerned with the links and relationships between actors (Albrecht, 2013). And Jamal and Getz (1995) and Murphy
(1985) may be considered as the earliest works on collaboration in tourism (Morrison, Lynch, & Johns, 2004).
A “network defined as a specific type of rela-tion (ties) linking defined sets of persons, objects or events” and these “sets of persons, objects or events on which a network is defined are called actors or nodes. Thus, a network consists of a set of nodes, and ties representing some relation-ship between the nodes” (Scott et al., 2008, p. 2). Tourism is a networked industry where clusters and networks of cooperative and competitive organisa-tions within a destination cooperate and compete in dynamic evolution.
[And] the concept of a network and the techniques of network analysis provide a means of conceptualising, visualising and analysing these complex sets of re-lationships. It provides a method for simplifying and communicating these relationships and so can be useful in promoting effective collaboration within destinations. It allows the iden-tification of critical junctures in desti-nation networks that cross functional, hierarchical or geographic boundaries, so ensuring integration within groups following strategic destination restruc-turing initiatives (Scott et al., 2008, p. 3).
Morrison et al. (2004, p. 198) employed a working definition of a tourism network to guide their research:
A set of formal, co-operative relation-ships between organisations and indi-viduals to achieve a particular purpose within the tourism sector that may re-sult in qualitative and/or quantitative benefits of a learning and exchange, business activity, and/or community
nature relative to building profitable tourism destinations.
Network theory offers avenues for exploring collaboration, trust, interdependence, reciprocity, conflicts of interest, leadership and other issues in the interaction of stakeholders (Albrecht, 2013). This led to the adoption of a network analytical approach by several researchers (Farmaki, 2015), which should be considered by planners and man-agers when developing a tourism destination, as network-based planning is important to achieve sustainability.
2.2.1. Networked planning for the sustainability of tourism destinations
Tourism destinations “have a greater chance to be competitive on a national and global basis when their businesses are competing and collaborating at the same time” (Novelli, Schmitz, & Spencer, 2006, p. 1142). Cooperative behaviour in tourism destination communities is a condition for sus-tainable planning and development of destinations (Beritelli, 2011). In fact, one of the key deter-minants of tourism industry’s sustainability is the development of effective networks and partnerships between actors (March & Wilkinson, 2009). Ac-cording to Dredge (2006) network theory provides an important analytical approach for the study of local tourism policy development in the context of tourism destination planning and management.
Tourism planning aims at bringing certain socio-economic benefits to society while maintain-ing sustainability of tourism industry through pro-tecting the environment and local culture (WTO, 1998). It should be understood as a problem avoid-ing tool, and not a problem solvavoid-ing one, and, si-multaneously, should not be only planning for, but planning with (Gunn, 1994).
Tourism planning must follow an approach that emphasises community involvement and participa-tion. It should be carried out according to a
sys-tematic process in order to be effective. The ning process varies depending on the type of plan-ning and local conditions. It should be developed and implemented following a strategic framework of action based on a global and integrated perspec-tive of the tourism system (including the commu-nity), likely to be implemented and monitored and, if applicable, revised without abrogating the basic objectives (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1998).
Despite physical planning is still a dominant objective due to the need to ensure ecological and social sustainable environments, tourism planning is now moving towards creating new models able of bringing together the regulation of the desti-nation, and the coordination and stimulation of private and public participation (Costa, 2006), as well as linking private and public sectors (Gunn, 1994). Public participation prevents that a group is favoured and leads to the development of ad-justed policies (Costa, 2001).
Gunn (1994) states that: the integration of planning at all scales is essential; clustering is a basic principle of planning and design; planning should encompass all travel; planning must pre-dict a better future (long-term betterment of all involved); economic development must not be an exclusive goal of planning; planning processes are becoming much more interactive (top-down plan-ning is being replaced by bottom-up planplan-ning). And since the end of the previous century, decisions have to be designed and implemented bearing in mind that:
planning is to be designed with the aim of providing solid ground, bring efficiency and increase the multiplier impact of private sector’s investment; and sustainable tourism calls for more comprehensive and inclusive forms of planning (Costa & Brandão, 2011, p. 5).
The Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism In-dustry aims “to establish systems and procedures
to incorporate sustainable development considera-tions at the core of the decision-making process and to identify actions necessary to bring sus-tainable tourism development into being” (WTTC, WTO, & The Earth Council, 1996, p. 38). Some of the priorities for the government organisations are: planning for sustainable tourism development; providing for the participation of all sectors of so-ciety in tourism; and partnerships for sustainable development.
The governmental organisations are the main responsible for the sustainable or unsustainable de-velopment of a territory. So they should: plan; assess the capacity of guaranteeing a sustainable development; involve all the sectors in the plan-ning and development process; and monitor the results obtained to ensure the sustainable devel-opment of the destination(s). The involvement of local communities in private and public actions is fundamental as without their involvement the tourism activity cannot be planned and developed in a sustainable way (WTTC et al., 1996).
Agenda 21 for Travel and Tourism focus the development of partnerships to facilitate responsi-ble entrepreneurship, and the most effective ones are likely to be those developed for mutual benefit. Concerning companies this Agenda has as objec-tive to form partnerships to bring about long-term sustainability. And mutual effort (of industry, or-ganisations and government) is needed to bring about long-term sustainability. Governmental or-ganisations can create an enabling policy environ-ment that is supportive of partnerships between the public, private and community sectors, as it is very important to incorporate communities in the planning process (WTTC et al., 1996).
Governments became progressively aware of the economic advantages that tourism could bring to development, and tourism planning started to be seen much more from a strategic point of view. And, as government budgets are shrinking it is crucial to involve the private sector and lo-cal communities, and, consequently, governments
must take into consideration the interests of pri-vate sector organisations and local communities (Costa, 2006; Dredge, 2006) to develop destina-tions sustainably.
A sustainable tourism destination strategy re-quires collaborative and inclusionary consensus-building practices (Presenza & Cipollina, 2010), so it is necessary to consider the trust dimension. In fact, sustainable tourism requires the commu-nity support, and that is only possible when there is trust, otherwise partnerships and collaboration may be undermined (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2016). And planners “in order to increase cooperation or launch collective action” must pay attention to “installed bonds of trust and understanding among actors, recognizable through intense com-munication” (Beritelli, 2011, p. 624). And as Dredge (2006) mentions, the communities com-prise a variety of stakeholder groups that inter-weave across networks of actors of private and public institutions. These networks may be formal contract-based or informal relation-based types of cooperation, as it depends of the conditions and circumstances actors convene and on the agree-ment specificity.
Sustainability would not be a reality unless tourism industry joins forces. The partnerships and the creation of tourism network(s), between tourism industry and local communities, are fun-damental for the formation and management of sustainable tourism policy. Tourism policies should be designed involving directly all stakeholders as it is very important their support (Costa et al., 2013; Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013). A co-herent and integrative tourism policy enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of a destination (Manente, Minghetti, & Montaguti, 2013; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003) playing networks a critical role in achieving effective public participation (Costa et al., 2013). Dredge (2006) asserts that inclusivity, participation and networking can significantly con-tribute to the management of tourism in a more sustainable manner.
Practical application lies as a problem to sus-tainable implementation. The stakeholder rela-tions are identified as a barrier to sustainable tourism development, partly due to different stake-holder interests, numerous policy domains, poor coordination of activities and failure to include communities in policymaking. Tourism industry is increasingly becoming network-based, and the ef-fectiveness of partnerships in achieving sustainabil-ity in tourism is fundamental. So when analysing networks it is needed to consider socio-cultural, economic and environmental factors. In fact, net-works are considered as channels for managing social relations between stakeholders (Farmaki, 2015).
Sustainability and networks are concepts that have a close relationship with planning, developing and managing a tourism destination. When plan-ning, one should take into account: the sustain-ability; the local community (their participation and involvement) and their need to work together through formal networks. Jamal and Getz (1995, p. 200) add that in “addition to aiding public-private sector interactions, collaboration may pro-vide an effective mechanism for community in-volvement in tourism planning, through selection of key stakeholders to represent the various public interests.” The tourism system requires integrated planning, which will benefit private and public sectors, especially if they cooperate (Gunn, 1994). “More local input and involvement at the planning stage will give destination communities a greater stake in the industry and create a more responsive partnership” (Murphy, 1985, p. 153).
More flexible and horizontal approaches are gaining importance, and they imply interaction, better coordination of the tourism stakeholders, and closer links between private and public sec-tors. This lead to the creation of networks and partnerships as a means of collaboration between the main players, which is fundamental in sus-tainable development (Costa, 1996, 2001; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999).
Repre-sentatives of all tourism sectors – governments, non-profit organizations, and enterprises – have the most to gain by cooperating on tourism plan-ning (Gunn, 1994).
[Public and private sectors networks] are increasingly important in shaping tourism planning and development. In many destinations, the formal and in-formal relationships between local gov-ernment and industry have a consider-able effect on the capacity of the desti-nation to harness these public–private partnerships (Dredge, 2006, p. 269). The capacity for building public–private part-nerships is best understood at the level where tourism planning, product development, packag-ing and marketpackag-ing takes place (Dredge, 2006). In networks, public and private sector, as well as local community, cooperate and they interact in decision-making and planning. Besides this sustainable coordination and the involvement of everyone implicated in the industry, a shared vision is required for effective sustainable development (Farmaki, 2015). Networking allows actors, includ-ing small, to take part in the decision-makinclud-ing pro-cess which is fundamental for sustainable tourism development. Networking is a mechanism that helps spreading the sustainable planning in des-tinations, as well as promotes collaborative pol-icy formulation and implementation (Barrutia & Echebarria, 2015). “In an era where tourism is dominated by requests for tailored experiences, SMEs play a key role in providing adequate prod-ucts and services to tourists by responding to their most specific requirements” (Novelli et al, 2006, p. 1141). Public-private partnership (PPPs) net-works became popular because they represent the mutual dependency between the government and the private sector, which encourages integrated decision-making and effective planning. PPPs represent holistic governance that is in line with
sustainability principles, as they, among others, foster entrepreneurship and innovation as gov-ernment and private sector share resources; and embrace local interests and increase coordination among tourism actors (Farmaki, 2015).
There is a general belief that participating in a collaborative tourism network produces benefits for tourism firms (Morrison et al., 2004; Novelli et al., 2006). Networks bring numerous bene-fits to tourism destinations by the promotion of an integrated planning process, inclusive decision-making, increased synergies, and, consequently, the support of the sustainability notion (Farmaki, 2015).
The need for cooperation and collaboration in tourism planning leads to the formation of policy and planning networks. Cooperation and collab-oration are major issues in the tourism planning (Bramwell & Lane, 1999; Timothy, 1999) as they are linked to the idea of sustainable tourism devel-opment. These networks play important roles in enhancing community participation and organisa-tional integration (Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Tosun, 2000). Policy networks may be vertical or horizon-tal in structure (Erkuş-Öztürk & Eraydın, 2010).
The findings of Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydın’s (2010) study indicate that the main motivation for tourism agents to engage in networking is economic, whereas the large and highly-qualified companies and tourism associations have deeper concerns on environmental issues. And “policies and support mechanisms should be developed to increase the motivation of organisations to engage in collaborative projects and organisation build-ing in environmental protection schemes” (Erkuş-Öztürk & Eraydın, 2010, p. 123).
Network theory provides an important analyti-cal approach for the study of loanalyti-cal tourism policy development in what concerns tourism destination
planning and management. Understanding the power differentials between actors is important to encourage engagement and participation of local government and tourism industry (Dredge, 2006).
Framing an analysis of tourism plan-ning and policy processes around con-cepts of networks opens up opportu-nities for enhanced understandings of how policy emerges from a complex web of interactions between a diver-sity of public and private sector ac-tors and agencies. It allows the devel-opment of understanding about dependence, reciprocity, mutual inter-est, trust, representativeness and lead-ership. [...] The networks can be used as an organising concept to under-stand the messiness of local tourism networks (Dredge, 2006, p. 271).
According to Presenza and Cipollina (2010) there are two main streams of application of net-works: networks are seen as an important conduit for managing public-private relationships; and they are understood as a useful framework for analyzing the evolution of business, product development, packaging and opportunities for further develop-ment. Planning and regulatory environments that are flexible and capable of opportune response are required by networks (Dredge, 2006). A variety of relations can be identified in tourism networks, which are recognized as complex and mutable enti-ties that develop and evolve over time in response to environmental and organizational developments and demands (March & Wilkinson, 2009; Presenza & Cipollina, 2010).
Figure 1 | Network-based model for sustainable destination planning
Source: Own elaboration based on Barrutia and Echebarria (2015); Beritelli (2011); Costa (2006); Costa and Brandão (2011); Dredge (2006); Farmaki (2015); Gunn (1994); Inskeep (1991); March and Wilkinson (2009); Morrison et al. (2004); Novelli et al.
(2006); WTO (1998); WTTC et al. (1996).
Tourism industry is increasingly becoming network-based and tourism system requires inte-grated planning which will benefit all actors if they cooperate on tourism planning. The network-based planning for the sustainability of tourism destinations may be translated into a conceptual model such as the one proposed (Figure 1). This conceptual model highlights that cooperation is a condition for sustainable planning and develop-ment of destinations, as this networks are key de-terminants of tourism sustainability. Tourism plan-ning must be carried in a systematic way and it should be implemented, monitored and, if needed, revised according the defined sustainable goals. The goals state what is expected to be achieved through tourism development and should be de-cided at the beginning of the study taking into account the sustainability concept, as well as the several dimensions of sustainability. These objec-tives should be determined in close coordination with the community.
Cooperation and collaboration are important in tourism planning as they are related to the sustain-able tourism development idea and, consequently originate policy and planning networks, which play important roles in enhancing community partici-pation. Community involvement and participation should be stimulated, as well as the promotion of networks between the private and public sec-tors because sustainability and effective planning require the involvement of all. And networks play an important role in achieving public participation, which is fundamental to design coherent and inte-grative tourism policies that enhance the compet-itiveness and sustainability of a destination.
3. Conclusion
This article aimed to synthesise the work devel-oped in the last three decades and presented the results of a literature review of network-based
plan-ning for sustainable tourism destination(s) devel-opment. Due to the complexity of tourism system and of the sustainability application networking is fundamental to effectively develop sustainably a tourism destination, especially as most enterprises in this industry are small sized.
The achievement of sustainability for tourism destinations is only possible if a comprehensive and inclusive form of planning is adopted, and effective networks and partnerships between tourism actors are developed. Therefore, network-based planning is essential as it allows planning with, i.e., design, plan, implement and monitor a strategic frame-work of action involving all (including local com-munity). And it should aim at bringing benefits to local actors while protecting the tourism destina-tion(s) features, i.e., taking into account the sus-tainability concept. Sustainable tourism requires the community support, so it is crucial to involve everyone at all levels of tourism planning, and en-hance the creation of networks between them, oth-erwise sustainability would not be a reality as it is necessary that tourism industry join forces. Co-operation between community members is essen-tial to destination(s) planning and development, and networking allows all to take part in the plan-ning process. It also helps spreading the sustain-able planning, as well as promotes collaborative formulation and implementation of policies. So, networked planning is one of the keys to achieve sustainability and competitiveness for tourism des-tinations.
The limitations of this article were the re-stricted number of references that could be em-ployed associated to the use of only one research database, the SCOPUS, which returned few arti-cles, being the majority not concerned to network-based planning towards tourism destination sus-tainability.
This paper confirmed the importance and ben-efits of network-based planning for the sustainabil-ity and competitiveness of tourism destinations. However the literature review showed that there
is a lack of empirical studies that prove the out-comes and benefits of networked planning. Some topics of network-based planning for tourism des-tinations sustainability to be developed are: com-parative analysis that helps to understand the re-sults on sustainability of different types and levels of networking, and the knowledge transfer between the network members. It is also very important to develop and divulge best practices that show the benefits of network-based planning for sustainable tourism destinations development.
References
Albrecht, J. N. (2013). Networking for sustainable tourism – towards a research agenda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(5), 639–657. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2012.721788
Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2015). Factors affect-ing the attitude of tourism-destination local authorities towards sustainable planning tools in a networking con-text: the Balearic Sustainability Network. Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism, 23(2), 207–233. http://doi.org/10. 1080/09669582.2014.934375
Beritelli, P. (2011). Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 607–629. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. 2010.11.015
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1999). Collaboration and part-nerships for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3–4), 179–181.
Butler, R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1, 7–25.
Caffyn, A., & Jobbins, G. (2003). Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and man-agement of coastal tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2–3), 224–245. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669580308667204
Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indica-tors for managing community tourism. Tourism Manage-ment, 27(6), 1274–1289. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2005.05.018
Costa, C. (2001). An emerging tourism planning paradigm? A comparative analysis between town and tourism plan-ning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(6), 425–441.
Costa, C. (2006). Tourism planning, development and the territory. In C. Costa & D. Buhalis (Eds.), Tourism Man-agement Dynamics - Trends, ManMan-agement and Tools (pp. 236–243). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Costa, C., & Brandão, F. (2011). Tourism innovation
through effective public participation: a sustainable ap-proach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Inter-national Tourism Sustainability Conference 2011: ‘Em-bracing Social and Environmental Change: The Influence and Role of Tourism’, University of Technology of Mau-ritius, 21-24 September.
Costa, C., Panyik, E., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Trends in European tourism planning and organisation. (C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis, Eds.). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Costa, C., Panyik, E., & Buhalis, D. (2014). European tourism planning and organisation systems - The EU member states. (C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis, Eds.). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Costa, C. M. M. da. (1996). Towards the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of tourism planning and development at the regional level: planning, organisa-tions and networks. The case of Portugal. PhD thesis University of Surrey, UK.
Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisa-tion of tourism. Tourism Management, 27(2), 269–280. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.10.003 Erkuş-Öztürk, H., & Eraydın, A. (2010). Environmental
governance for sustainable tourism development: Collab-orative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113–124. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.002 Farmaki, A. (2015). Regional network governance and
sus-tainable tourism. Tourism Geographies, 17(3), 385–407. http://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1036915 Getz, D. (1986). Models in tourism planning: Towards
in-tegration of theory and practice. Tourism Management, 7(1), 21–32.
Gunn, C. A. (1994). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. Washington: Taylor & Francis.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning : An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: Van Nos-trand Reinhold.
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A cri-tique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459–475. http://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667216 Manente, M., Minghetti, V., & Montaguti, F. (2013). The
role of the EU in defining tourism policies for a compet-itive destination governance. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis (Eds.), Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation (pp. 208–219). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
March, R., & Wilkinson, I. (2009). Conceptual tools for evaluating tourism partnerships. Tourism Manage-ment, 30(3), 455–462. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2008.09.001
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. London: Longman. Morrison, A., Lynch, P., & Johns, N. (2004). International
tourism networks. International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management, 16(3), 197–202. http: //doi.org/10.1108/09596110410531195
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainabil-ity: New tourism in the Third World (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London: Methuen, Inc.
Novelli, M., Schmitz, B., & Spencer, T. (2006). Net-works, clusters and innovation in tourism: A UK experi-ence. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1141–1152. http: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.011
Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2016). Rethinking the role of power and trust in tourism planning. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(4), 512–522. http://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2015.1019170 Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive
strategies. Wallingford: CAB International.
Presenza, A., & Cipollina, M. (2010). Analysing tourism stakeholders networks. Tourism Review, 65(4), 17–30. http://doi.org/10.1108/16605371011093845 Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive
destination: A sustainable tourism perspective (1st ed.). Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Manag-ing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. An-nals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328. Re-trieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record. url?eid=2-s2.0-0032956373&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analy-sis and tourism:from theory to practice. Clevedon: Chan-nel View Publications.
Stabler, M. J. (1997). Tourism and sustainability: princi-ples to practice (1st ed.). New York: CAB International. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633.
Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Im-plementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Man-agement, 36, 342–353. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2012.10.008
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards sustainable development. Retrieved February 14, 2015, from http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
WTO. (1998). Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. Madrid: WTO.
WTO. (2016). UNWTO tourism highlights. (UNWTO, Ed.). Madrid. http://doi.org/http://www.e-unwto. org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
WTTC, WTO, & The Earth Council. (1996). Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry. Re-trieved from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10. 18111/9789284403714
